Handicappers vs Squares

[ripit4me]

I'm new to all this! This question probably has been brought up before but....................
Can any of you tell me the difference? The most basic form of a square is someone who doesn't know anything about sports and bets just for the fun of it and see if they get lucky like playing the lotto, there is no real skill involved. But for a sportsfan that follows different types of sports and knows a little about home field advantage, injuries, and maybe some stats, are they still squares? How about the square that looks at stats, trends, follows a certain team, etc, are they still a square. My buddy who i trust lives in Vegas, and I don't think he's a handicapper, but maybe very lucky, but at least last year he took home 20k after the bowl games and another 20k after the basketball season. So, when is a square considered a handicapper? If one is truly studying these games shouldn't their percentage of picking the right games should be higher like 70-80% versus a person who blindly picks teams and maybe 45-50%? Seems like an average acceptable percentage is 55%ish. I don't know, just want clarification.

[u21c3f6]

I don't like using the term square because it is usually used as a derogatory term. However, in my view, being a "square" to me means someone who is not profitable which can be a recreational player who knows little to nothing but it can also be a "handicapper" that knows a lot (or too much!). For me, it isn't about square, handicapper etc, it is about whether you are profitable or not.

I know many individuals that could astound you with the amount of information they know yet they have never been profitable. They have never learned how to "win".

Some of what you wrote has actually been my experience. I have often been referred to as very "lucky" because I don't approach wagering in the way that most do and I don't usually use the kind of information that most use. I have written this before but when I would have discussions with other players they would tell me that I can't do it my way, that I needed to look at things the way they did. I then ask them if they are profitable and after some hemming and hawing they respond no but it was because of this or that and they will or should be profitable etc, etc. All I heard was that they were not profitable doing it their way so why would I want to do it their way?

The whole trick to this game or any “market” game is to set-up situations where you will receive more on your winners than you lose on your losers (of course over a valid sample etc). There are many ways to approach doing that, you just need to find at least one.

Careful observation and experience can help one to be profitable. But let me caution you about experience (and/or knowledge). If what one is doing is not working, why would one persist in doing that? There are many players that have 30 years “experience” but are still not profitable. They haven’t learned how to “win” and are probably repeating mistakes of the past. Practice does not make perfect, it makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect. (Credit for the last two sentences goes to someone else, I just don’t know who).

BOL. Joe.

[Wrecktangle]

It's simple in my world: In the extreme, squares bet teams because they like them to win. Pro handicappers bet situations they think will win money. Between theses extremes is where we all fall.